Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thalassodromeus/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2018 [1].

Thalassodromeus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the second article about a pterosaur to be nominated as FAC (after Istiodactylus). This particular pterosaur is unusual for having one of the largest cranial crests of any animal, and for both its genus and specific names apparently being misnomers. There has been speculation that the only known skull of this animal was lost in the National Museum of Brazil fire (though not confirmed by reliable sources), which will perhaps make the info currently in this article all we'll ever know about it (unless more fossils are found). The article is a GA, has been copy edited, and covers the entire relevant literature, as far as I'm aware. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

Off-topic
NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum.

1a, lead:

"proportionally-largest"—MOS and the big style guides say no hyphen after -ly adverbs. There's another one further down.

Removed both. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed there are a lot more of these throughout the article (added during copy-edit), will remove soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CMOS, and many editors, advise preference for "that" over "which" where there's no preceding comma. There are good reasons for this. Two examples in the opening paragraph, and one in the second paragraph.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and the specific name refers to the Egyptian god Seth due to its crest being supposedly reminiscent of Seth's crown."—consider straighter grammar: "and the specific name refers to the Egyptian god Seth because its crest was supposedly reminiscent of Seth's crown."

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the repetition here: "and they are grouped in a clade which has been placed within Tapejaridae (as Thalassodrominae) or within Neoazhdarchia (as Thalassodromidae)"

Do you mean the part in parenthesis? One is a subfamily version of the name (inae suffix), while the other is a family (idae). I've specified this now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry! I looked three times to see a difference. Need new specs. Tony (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singular–plural clash, in a generally unsatisfactory sentence: "A number of theories have been suggested for the function of the crest of Thalassodromeus (including thermoregulation and display), and it most likely had more than one function."

Changed to the following, any better? "Various theories have been suggested to explain the function of Thalassodromeus's crest (including thermoregulation and display), but it likely had more than one function." FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The crests of thalassodromids appear to have developed late in growth (probably correlated with sexual maturity), and they may have been sexually dimorphic." The crests may have been dimorphic?

You could say so, if there are such differences in the crests, the crests themselves are dimorphic. So it can apply both to the species and the crests. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singular–plural tension: "Thalassodromeus was originally proposed to have fed like modern skimmer birds, by skimming over the surface of water and dipping its lower jaws to catch prey." Make the skimmer bird singular?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I recall I wrote "skimmers" plural because there is no single skimmer species; it is the common name of a genus that containts three species. So I wonder if it is more appropriate to say "skimmers" after all? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of "like a modern skimmer bird", which conveniently dodges the issue but avoids singular–plural tension. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This idea was later criticised for a lack of evidence"—remove "a"?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"relatively ... relatives".

I'm not sure I follow, but changed "relatives" to "related species" anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad, so far. Tony (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (credit to the copy-editor), I've addressed the issues above. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very good: thanks, FM. Tony (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Description"—just the first para:

"indicating that it was an adult"—you could go with "indicating adulthood", if it works for you.

Nice to be concise, done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to give British Empire unit conversions, consider using range dashes to reduce the clutter: "Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span is estimated to have been between 4.2 to 4.5 metres (14 to 15 ft)." But second point: "between ... and" (not "to"). "from ... to". So: "to have been 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft)". Third, you've already covered the provenance of the claim (for WP's narrative) with the "Based on" and the two refs, so why not: "Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span was 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft)"? Now it's shorter, you could re-organise the text this way: ""Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span was 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft), making Thalassodromeus the largest known member of its clade, Thalassodromidae. Of similar proportions, its skull was ~~heavier~~ more heavily built than that of its relative Tupuxuara.

Took your version. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on the look-out for ambiguities? "relatives had unusually short and blocky neck vertebrae and well-developed limbs of almost equal length (excluding the long wing-finger)." So the limbs are of similar length to the neck vertebrae?

Changed to "with well-developed front and hind-limbs that were almost equal in length", is it any clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The hindlimbs were 80 percent of the forelimb length, unique among pterodactyloids (short-tailed pterosaurs)." The first clause isn't grammatical ("that of" needed). But why not simpler? "The hindlimbs were 20 percent shorter than the forelimbs." What was unique among the pterodactyloids? We talking limbs or lengths, and which ones? Anatomical descriptions (one burden of your chosen topics) require precision.

Added "that of", but since the source says "80 % of", and though I know it means the same, I wonder if it is best to keep the emphasis the same as in the source? I changed the last part to "a unique ratio among pterodactyloids", better? FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good size schematic. Tony (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, makes it more tangible, seems you could just about look it in the eyes... FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good; but some of these points have generic dimensions that can be applied through the rest of the text. It's a big job for reviewers to bulldoze through the whole thing. Tony (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the comments so far are much appreciated. I wonder if that first paragraph is a bit more unwieldy because of all the numbers. In any case, with such science articles, it is unfortunately always necessary to have "layreaders" plough through the text to see if it is comprehensible. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aim for scientists in other fields, and try to retain intelligent non-scientists as much as possible. People are interested in these monsters. This is why making the prose as straightforward as you can is so important. Do you print it out and use a pen? Tony (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't tried that, does it make it easier to spot issues, or how? Doesn't help that my printer only produces annoyingly faint, grey letters (even with new ink)... FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by, I always follow these palaeo FAs to learn more about the process and what sort of things to look out for when writing articles myself. But may I ask what "NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum." is doing as a header for this review? It seems very out of place and against WP:AssumeGoodFaith. It might make sense if the nominator is being intentionally disruptive, but I don't see any of that occuring here. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a general statement in response to some arguments in other, unrelated FACs, not necessarily to anything here... Seems there's a bit of drama going on. FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is.[2] Also, I just noticed that the mural behind the Irritator mount actually depicts Thalassodromeus, which might be worth pointing out in the caption. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for copyright reasons, it's probably best to pretend the painting isn't there, hehe... As for the drama, well, I'd rather stay out of it... FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling Tony's review won't continue (based on the discussion you linked), perhaps you have more to add, PaleoGeekSquared? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoGeekSquared

I'll start my review later today, FunkMonk, since I'll be busy for the next several hours. You've helped me a lot with Irritator already so it's only fair I do something in return. Plus, I'll pick up some knowledge on this animal and pterosaurs in general along the way, which is always fun! ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, not to mention getting to know more about another animal from the same formation as Irritator. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Link period and palaeontologists.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit inconsistent to use genus name and then specific name, you could change the former to generic name or the latter to species name.

Changed to generic. "Species name" can apparently also refer to the full binomial. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pointed out that that the crest - "that that".

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The closest relative of Thalassodromeus was Tupuxuara, and they are grouped in a clade that has been placed within Tapejaridae - Perhaps this could be The closest relative of Thalassodromeus was Tupuxuara; both are grouped in a clade that has been placed within Tapejaridae.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

by skimming over the surface of water - Again, could be more concise: by skimming over the water's surface.

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T. oberlii? should be bolded in the lead as well, right now that occurs only in the taxobox.

Yeah, added. I wonder if that issue will ever be solved... Kind of another parallel to the Irritator/Angaturama issue... FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's in regard to a jaw tip as well. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk PaleoGeekSquared To my understanding T. oberlii should be not be bolded in the lead as the subject has its own page, Banguela. The title and redirects to the article which are widely accepted names are bolded. As the subject is a genus with multiple species, T. oberlii doesn't fit under the "alternative title for the subject" clause either. Per MOS:BOLDLEAD only Thalassodromeus and T. sethi should be bolded. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the context it is used here, tough, it is as a species of Thalassodromeus, not Banguela. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's being treated as a subset of the topic is irrelevant, the important part is that it has its own page. If the page was called Thalassadromeus oberlii it'd still be the same situation. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not sure it's that simple, and we don't really have any precedents. The problem is, these are two vastly different interpretations, there is no scientific consensus (there are simply no independent reactions to either interpretation), and Wikipedia effectively represents both sides equally by having two separate articles. But when we present the species as part of this genus, I think it should be bolded, because it would not be a separate article if that is the case. But when we describe it as belonging to another genus, it shouldn't be bolded. The only similar case I can think of is Pteranodon vs Geosternbergia, but the former doesn't even list the species in the intro... FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I'm pretty sure that T. sebesensis should be bolded, since it's a topic that's covered entirely within this article and redirects. Sure, it's invalid, but invalid species are still subjects and if it would have its own article had it been given a distinct genus. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a synonym of Kallokibotion, bolding it here wouldn't be appropriate, but perhaps there if the species is ever mentioned in the intro of that article FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description

(the front bones of the snout) - Could also be (the frontmost snout bones).

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

horny (keratinous) - should be keratinous (horny), since this is the format followed in the rest of the article; the technical term going first, with the explanation parenthesised after it.

Swapped. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The upper jaw of T. sethi was primarily composed of premaxillae and maxillae; the suture which formed the border between these bones is not visible. - There is a duplink of premaxillae, might be worth using the "Highlight duplicate links" tool to check for more of these.

Done, seems this was another case of a redirect not showing, so yeah, it seems to be something that needs to be fixed in the script. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The palatal area at the tip of the snout in T. sethi - could be The palatal area at the tip of T. sethi's snout.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instances of the ridge of the palate could be replaced with the palatal ridge.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

were oval-shaped --> were oval.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

possibly a different genus Link genus on first mention, same thing with species later in the discovery section.

Done. You could argue that linking "species" is WP:overlinking, but I'll let others decide. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain mandibular fossae.

Added "depression", I think it's purpose is explained by the latter part of the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of discovery

Link nodule.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to link three-dimensional?

Perhaps not, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link 2002 to 2002 in paleontology.

Added to the taxobox, but I wonder if it might be a bit much to add it to the article body; people will ask why not every single year mentioned is linked likewise. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I usually link only the years when a certain taxon has been named, since most of the earlier "XXXX in paleontology" articles don't have sections on general discoveries or new information on known taxa, just genera or species that were named during that particular year. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll be bit much here, I usually keep them in the taxobox, and I was even asked to remove the link from the article body once. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another duplink with holotype specimen, this is the last one I'll point out since the duplink tool should help you see the rest of them.

Strangely, the duplink script doesn't show duplinks for me if the second link is a redirect... Does it do it for you? Perhaps something that could be brought up to the bot operator... FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also had that problem in the past, I'll leave a short message on the op's talk page. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same inconsistency with genus name and specific name as in the lead.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link 1998 to 1998 in paleontology.

As above, I'm not sure if we should really link every single year mentioned in a palaeontology article... FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link concretion.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

a paraphyletic (unnatural) group - Ah, I could explain paraphyletic this way in Irritator as well, don't know why I didn't think of that.

It's probably the most concise way of explaining an otherwise complex term... FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeobiology

hypertrophied --> hypertrophied (enlarged).

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(such as keratin, as in bird beaks) - The wording seems a bit awkward to me, not sure.

Said "such as the keratin in bird beaks" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both sexual selection and mutual sexual selection link to the same article, probably best to unlink the second one since most people know what "mutual" means.

Removed the second link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reconstructingThalassodromeus' fishing method - Apart from the obvious need to separate two words, I feel like Thalassodromeus's would look less awkward in text than Thalassodromeus'.

Whoops, fixed, personally I would just say "method of Thalassodromeus", but I guess the copy editor did this to make it simpler. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

short and tubby. - is "stubby" meant?

The source actually says tubby. The copy editor also changed it to "stubby", but this has a different meaning, so I changed it back. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, didn't realise that was an actual word. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzalcoatlus sp. - Explain with (of uncertain species).

I just removed sp.; the taxonomic intricacies of a completely different genus aren't really relevant here, and once that species is named, we can just add the new name. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoecology

Link stage to stage (stratigraphy).

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with geological period.

Was done earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santana Group is not linked, (remember it now has an article).

Not sure how that happened, now linked. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a much broader note, this section could benefit from the content that has now been added to its equivalent in Irritator, especially in regards to fauna.

Copied some more taxa from Irritator, but much of the other text seems to be specfically about aquatic predators and aquatic habitats, which are not so relevant for a pterosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments

Interestingly, the Thalassodromeus skeletal mount in the taxobox image is exhibited at the same museum (the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo) as that of Irritator, which you could point out in the caption. Yet another mutual feature between both articles!

Oh, and by that I mean the museum name, not the fact that both of them were displayed at the same building, which would obviously count as very trivial info in the article.

Added, seems there might have been a room of Brazilian mounts? FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, looks like it was part of an exhibit called "Dinosaurs of Gondwana"[3] ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty nice idea linking restoration to paleoart, I must say!

Maybe something we should do generally, I did it because some FAC reviewers have been unsure what was meant by the term "restoration" in the past... FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

genus could be linked on its first caption appearance as well.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might add more comments later, but unfortunately I can't do a more in-depth review due to time constraints, so mostly it's just links and minor grammatical and prose concerns. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no rush, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been answered so Supporting now, though we need more experienced reviewers here. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, but you caught a good deal of stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images appropriately licensed, except:
The sourcing on File:Thalassodomeus skull.png is unclear and needs to be cleaned up. I believe that the artist uploaded it himself, but it's hard to tell from the info in the summary. And the link to the artist's website isn't up to date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, I think the problem is that he uploaded it without a description template (way back in 2006 when uploading was less refined), so a bot later filled that stuff out with half-gibberish. I have now cleaned it up and added a link to his current website. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Page numbers aren't needed for Witton in the Bibliography

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does FN7 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

In this case, since it is used to support a very uncontroversial fact which isn't mentioned in other sources (that the fossil was collected over a long period of time), I thought it was ok. But perhaps not? The same author is also cited in the article for a "proper" paper. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN9: authors are backwards, it appears location has been bundled in with symposium name - check formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be stalling, I wonder if Casliber has something to say (though I read he was busy, sorry for always bugging you)? For everyone else, hey, there's even a bit of the ancient Egyptian pantheon discussed in here, so give it a shot even if you know nothing about ancient reptiles! FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

Taking a look now ,,,,Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Para 2 of description section has alot of "crest"s in it...but I'm not sure you can do much about that.

Yeah, I think it will be harder to follow if any of them are taken out, though, if I for example say "it" instead, it will be unclear what part of the preceding sentences it refers to... FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~The interrelationship of these clades within the larger clade Azhdarchoidea remained controversial~~ ~~- was there really controversy? (i.e. "prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion") or do you just mean "unclear"?~~

How about "contested"? It is a bit more than unclear, there are essentially two camps in pterosaur research that use parallel taxonomic systems, and they never seem to agree on anything... FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok, that or "disputed" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took "disputed". FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reads well ~~otherwise~~ hence Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is stalling so hard (too technical?), the last pterosaur FAC didn't get many comments either. I'll ping N Oneemuss who is the only person who commented on the last pterosaur who hasn't commented here. Perhaps RileyBugz or Jimfbleak would be interested, there are a lot of references to birds, and pterosaurs are very bird-like in any case... FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, I'll have a look soonish. I'm in the middle of TFA scheduling at the moment, so it might be a day or two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there should be time enough before it is archived, I hope... FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

I think almost all dinosaur articles are over-technical for my tastes, but I suppose having only bones to work from makes that inevitable, and certainly isn't a reason to oppose an otherwise very comprehensive article. I liked the fact that the size comparison image by Paleogeek that you used didn't have a default male human (and I speak as a default male!). This has been well picked over by other reviewers, but a couple of nitpicks:

Thanks, will fix the issues soon. PaleoGeekSquared did a good job with the size diagram, perhaps the next one should feature a female too? FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that my size comparison has received so many compliments, especially since it's my first attempt at a pterosaur one. As for the human silhouette, I'm growing quite fond of it, and try to make an effort to use more varied and interesting humans for my charts; we don't necessarily have to use the waving Pioneer plaque one all the time. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what I said above, having unlinked and unexplained "Nasoantorbital" in the opening para is a technical term too far.

The part in parenthesis is supposed to explain all that "(openings that combined the antorbital fenestra and the opening for the bony nostril)". I guess it reads as if it only explains the term fenestra now? Possibly this is confusing because I explaine the components in the opposite order of what "nasoantorbital fenestrae" would imply, perhaps better if I say "openings that combined the opening for the bony nostril with the antorbital fenestra"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

openings/opening is problematic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, seems I explained it simpler under description, "(opening which combined the antorbital fenestra and the bony nostril)", so I just used the same wording in the intro now. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

would have been proficient on the ground. — Perhaps clarify? The text and images variously say or show that it might have waded like a stork in water, or run on land, and one image shows an aerial attack. Was it a stealth hunter or a chaser?

Changed to "efficient at moving on the ground". This is in contrast to some other pterosaurs, which may have been more awkward when walking. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but the extent of this is unknown.[1][2][5][3][6]— I know it's neater like this, but I don't think we are keen on bundling refs at the end of the para when there are more than a couple. Can you assure me that the content is so intermingled that this is necessary? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The refs have now been spread out. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issues should now be addressed, Jimfbleak. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, struck comments from heading Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique

Lead

Perhaps a brief explanation of what a pterosaur is would be helpful.

I added "(extinct order of flying reptiles)" to the first mention of the word in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

around 1.42 metres (4 ft 8 in) long — Maybe just "m" for consistency?

Everything should be abbreviated now. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.2 to 4.5 metres (14 to 15 ft). — Same issue.

Same as above. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and they may have been sexually dimorphic — Perhaps a slight explanation, e.g., "particular to one gender."

I went with "(differing according to sex)". Turns out Darwin had used that exact phrasing when I google this order of words, so it should be fine... FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

would have been proficient on the ground — What does this mean?

Changed to "efficient at moving on the ground", per above, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description

1.42 metres (4 ft 8 in) ... 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft) — Same as above.

Fixed with the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.2–4.5 m (14–15 ft) — Convention seems to use "# to #," not en dashes. Speaking of which, if you care to change them (hardly a big deal if you don't), many of the en dashes used in the article to break up sentences could instead be em dashes.

Not sure if there is a convention as such, but the article should certainly be internally consistent, so added "to". But I don't think I see en dashes used to break up text anywhere? FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the convention used in this article, not a broader Wikipedia convention. An example of en dashes is at "different genus – Banguela – which". The em dash is longer: — instead of –. Em dashes are used only twice in the article, once where I changed the wording ("—not by Seth.") and once in the references (footnote #15). No worries if you prefer the en dashes instead of em, just though I’d mention it. —Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preferences in this regard actually (and usually don't pay much attention to it, I prefer commas), the dashes were added by the copy-editor. But I think I have now added the — everywhere appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(which were distended by the wing finger) — What does this mean?

That the skin that formed the wings was stretched out by a long finger. I have changed to "extended", does that make it clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(opening which combined the antorbital fenestra and the bony nostril) — If meant to be a layman's explanation of what a "nasoantorbital fenestra" is, using the term "antorbital fenestra" doesn't help much.

Hmmm, it is just a large opning (which is essentially what fenestra means), I've specified where it is located, is that better? "openings that combined the antorbital fenestra in front of the eye with the bony nostril". FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 to 10.5 mm (0.039 to 0.413 in) — This is largely stylistic, but I'm not sure the conversion adds much here. Even from the perspective of one most used to the imperial system, 1mm is a lot easier to wrap my head around than 0.039in.

I see your point. For me, it's more for consistency. But I can remove it if it's important. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

back, (except for the lower part behind the occiput, where it had a thick base) — You should ditch either the first comma, or the parentheses.

Snipped comma. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

650 mm (26 in) ... 200 mm (7.9 in) ... 670 mm (26 in) ... 170 mm (6.7 in) — Why mm to in rather than cm to in? That the numbers are so round also suggests that the precision of measuring hundreds of millimeters is misleading.

Just because that's what the sources do. Veering away from units used by the sources makes me a bit uneasy... But can't say I personally prefer either way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of discovery

a long period of time — How long?

The source doesn't state, sadly, I would also like to know... FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mandibular ramus — Link?

Only links to mandible, so added an explanation instead. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the pieces of skull had been divided between museums in South and North America — Why?

Likewise, the sources don't specify, but I believe it might be related to the commercial fossil trade which is a problem in Brazil (the pieces might have been sold to different museums). FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In their view — I believe this technically refers to Kellner and Campos, not Martill and Naish.

Changed to "In the view of Martill and Naish". FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their view — And vice versa.

Changed to "Kellner and Campos' view". FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and the new specimen filled in the gap of Kellner and Campos' T. sethi skull reconstruction — I'm a bit confused here. Is this a second conclusion of Veldmeijer et al., or part of their first conclusion? If the former, a "concluded both that ... and also that" might be warranted.

Might be another copy edit snip, I added ", and that the new specimen filled in the gap". FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

filled in the gap — Meaning the missing pieces, i.e., the hatched sections in the first image in this section?

Something like that, though it isn't specifically stated that it refers to a diagram. The source says "The importance of the Swiss specimen lies in the fact that it fills in the grey areas imagined by Kellner & Campos (2002) and thus makes the complete reconstruction of the skull of Thalassodromeus possible". You think I should reword it? FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo V. Pêgas, Fabiana R. Costa, and Kellner assigned B. oberlii back to Thalassodromeus recognised it as a distinct species — This doesn't sound right. Is it missing a comma between "Thalassodromeus" and "recognised"?

Seems some of it was snipped during copy edit, changed back to something more similar to the original wording: "assigned B. oberlii back to Thalassodromeus while recognising it as a distinct species, and thereby created the new combination T. oberlii". FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

Kellner elaborated on the relationships within Tapejaridae — Should Tapejaridae be italicized?

No, that is only for genus and species names (this one is a family name). Don't ask why! FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it had a large component of soft tissue — What is the "it"?

The crest, specified. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crest function

which had also been suggested for some dinosaurs. — This is a bit vague.

Added "suggested for the crests of some dinosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the heat would have been dumped — Perhaps overly colloquial?

Said "dispelled" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if the head and crest were moved to the sides while flying. — How would this work?

Rewrote as follows, better? "and they suggested that, when in flight, heat would have been dispelled more effectively if the crest was aligned with the wind, while the head was intentionally moved to the sides". FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the crests of it and its relatives developed by the premaxillary portion growing backwards over the skull roof — This seems a bit off.

Simplified the whole sentence to the following, any better? "In 2006, Martill and Naish found that the crests of Tupuxuara and its relatives developed by the premaxillary portion of the crests growing backwards over the skull-roof". FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

interesting, although the model proposed by Martill and Naish was speculative. — Is this a statement about the model (which by its very nature would seem to have to be pretty speculative), or about Kellner and Campos's view of the model? If the latter, this could just be "interesting, if speculative."

The general discussion and the exact model proposed are different things, so reworded it as "Kellner and Campos found Martill and Naish's discussion of cranial crest development interesting, although they found their proposed model speculative". FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diet

[They] found the jaws of Thalassodromeus similar to those of modern skimmers ... with its sideways-compressed jaws, blade-like beak, and protruding lower jaw — "its" technically refers to the jaws of Thalassodromeus, which is problematic because a) you mean to refer to Thalassodromeus, and notwithstanding that, b) since it refers to jaws, plural, "its" should be "their."

Changed to "their", is it enough? FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 kilogram (2.2 lb) — lb abbreviated, but kilogram not.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just added the following sentence to the diet section: "The aluminium rigging of the Thalassodromeus model was destroyed during the experiment, due to the high and unstable forces exerted on it while high speed skimming, casting further doubt on this feeding-method." FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotion

Williams compared it with the spermaceti in the head of the sperm whale, which is supposedly used to change buoyancy — I changed "supposedly" to "believed to be," but then the next sentence implies that there is dispute over how spermaceti is used. Is it just Williams who thinks it is used for bouyancy?

Williams just say they are "supposed" to have this function, so he's not the one who suggested it, he must just have read it somewhere (he's not a biologist). And with many such things, there are differing views on it, so I wonder if saying "supposedly" would still be the best option? I tried with "stating it is supposedly used to", to make it clear it is his claim. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoecology

What's the standard for including red links? For instance Anhanguera isn't in red text, but Euraxemys is.

Any subject deserving an article should be redlinked to encourage its creation. And in this case, every genus and family warrants an article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to do this in bits and pieces, but my start is above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll start fixing stuff soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read your helmet nomination, it struck my how similar the process of palaeontological reconstruction from bits and pieces is to the archaeological equivalent... FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usernameunique, this has been open almost two months, and seems to have consensus to promote but I don't want to curtail your review if you've more to add and can return fairly soon -- how's it looking for you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, I’ve finished the review, and added my support; the comments that remain are not substantive.

Another good article, FunkMonk, and a pleasure to read. I too was struck by the similarities between this article and the one on the Benty Grange helmet. Both take small objects, be they partial skulls or a few strips of rusted iron, and use the available evidence to tell much larger stories. It recalls the comic in which the first panel depicts an archaeologist uncovering a small artifact, and the second shows a life-size village with the caption "reconstruction of a prehistoric village based on archaeological evidence." Although the punchline is as the expense of these deductions, it is fascinating to see how so much can be read into so little. —Usernameunique (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last issues should now be addressed. Thanks for comments and support! Yeah, it is also really interesting when palaeontology and archaeology intertwines, which is one of the things that made woolly mammoth fun to write about. I hope cave lion and woolly rhinoceros can get the treatment too one day... FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lusotitan

The classification section feels below the standard of the rest of the article:

The sources don't help much in this regard, though, and taxa named this recently usually don't have very interesting taxonomic histories, only "these author placed it here due to these features, while those others placed it here because of some other features." Nothing dramatic like "this was once thought to belong to an entirely different order." FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't reply to all the replies individually, as it seems you and me just have very conflicting ideas on how to make a classification section. I feel that your insistence to make it chronological makes it confusing, misleading, and just generally very muddled, but if you disagree I cannot force you to make changes. I will, however, again insist on my cladograms - having the visual aids reflect the text is, I feel, very important. Some or even many readers were rely most on the visual info and only lightly look at the text, especially in a classification section. Just including the one idea as a cladogram, in my opinion, all on its own vastly biases the section in favor of it over the others.

Well, someone's gotta make it then... But I'm not opposed to it once it's done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The classification of thalassodromids as a distinct family or subfamily of Tapejaridae remains controversial, as is noted in the text. Despite this, only one cladogram is shown, favoring the latter arrangement. I think it'd be more neutral to show trees demonstrating both (like is done in the Thalassodromidae article), especially since many readers will likely only skim the text and just look at the tree. I'd recommend using two side-by-side trees, moving the image of Tupuxuara to the top of section to make room for this.

Hmm, pterosaur taxonomy is a gigantic mess, with parallel systems supported by different groups of researchers. If we should really be neutral, we would have to show three different cladograms (including the one with Dsungaripteromorpha). Personally, I think it is a bit superfluous if the alternatives are explained in the text, as here. Admittedly, it may seem arbitrary that the one shown here was chosen, but it shows the Tapejaridae grouping, which seems to be slightly more prevalent than the other systems. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the classification section is also unrepresentative; it starts on the tapejarid idea, introduces the other arrangement, and then ends once again on the tapejarid arrangement. One option is to give both theories their own paragraphs, talking the support for each and what authors and studies have supported it (a reading of the section as current seems to favor the placement in Tapejaridae; just adding some other cases of recent support for the Thalassodromidae classification such as in Witton's book would aid in making it feel more balanced). More easily implemented would be merely started the paragraph with a sentence saying the issue has been controversial, citing the 2018 paper. This makes the topic sentence of the paragraph that there are completing ideas instead of "it's traditionally been a tapejarid". The latter is true, but the former is more representative since this paragraph takes on most of the weight of explaining the issue of the two ideas.

It presents the studies chronologically (like I think historical sections always should); jumping back and forth regardless of chronology would make it harder to understand, I think. Better to show it in the actual succession, as knowledge accumulated, it is more neutral as well. I think Witton muddles it up a bit in his description of the situation, since he is so personally involved in it, that approach would leave most laymen baffled. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, keep it chronological if you want too (though I disagree), but my second suggestion was about the paragraph having a topic sentence. You can have an overviewing topic sentence and still keep the rest of the paragraph chronological.

It is a mischaracterisation to say the text currently says "it has traditionally been classified as a tapejartid". I have now added an introductory sentence, but I personally don't think it adds much, as it becomes clear early on in the paragraph that there are competing systems. As for citing Witton's book, he makes no new claims regarding classification in it, he already took Unwin's side in his 2009 paper (as cited already), so it would be misleading to cite him twice on this. In short, there is a Brazilian system of pterosaur systematics championed by Kellner, and a British system championed by Unwin, but we can't really state this outright. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

had received different names from different researchers (Thalassodrominae and Tupuxuaridae) - this list should include the name Thalassodromidae. Excluding makes it seem like the "correct" one but its on even ground with Thalassodrominae, and the wording would call for it to be included here anyways.

Again, it is chronologically presented here, Thalassodromidae wasn't used at that point, only coined by Witton years later (which is exactly how the relevant paragraph presents it): "Witton further converted the subfamily name Thalassodrominae into the family name Thalassodromidae". FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then change the wording. The sentence as current just states that different names have been applied over time. Change it to say that originally, there were two competing names. The current wording leaves no indication it's supposed just be about what names were used at the start of the chronology. Also, I still feel it should be re-iterated very clearly why the name kept changing. For somebody who knows taxonomy it's evident from paragraph one, but general readers have little to no understanding of taxonomy and may fail to make the connection.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "current wording leaves no indication it's supposed just be about what names were used at the start of the chronology". The name didn't keep changing from Thalassodrominae to Tupuxuaridae; as the text states, different researchers just used different names for the same clade in parallel, for no good reason. I have added who coined the alternate name. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neoazdarchia is suddenly used but never defined, so to a general reader it means nothing. It doesn't have its own page like Tapejaridae, which is more clearly "this is a family of pterosaurs", so it doesn't really pass like this as effectively. I'd give a brief explanation in parentheses.

Added a new sentence "This clade (Tupuxuara and Azhdarchidae) had been named Neoazhdarchia by palaeontologist David Unwin in 2003, an arrangement Martill and Naish concurred with." I also added some clade definitions. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph two is mostly about the nomenclature of the group, but the last sentence is more directly about the placement, something that seems more at home in the first paragraph. This isn't a huge deal, but having different paragraphs having clear topics is good organization (the history section has a perfect handle on this, for comparison).

Well, chronology again, it is not grouped by topic. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic your history section should have the comment about a 2018 study touching on the Banguela issue after the T. sebesensis discussion. I think this'd be a terrible change, but if you insist on historical sections being firmly chronological, why aren't you consistent about it?

Each species is treated chronologically there, so I don't think its comparable. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about the nomenclature part, it's awkward. The first half just deals with Thalassodrominae and Tupuxuaridae, and only later introduces Thalassadromidae. Why? It's not like the first sentence says "it had" as if this is "originally, there were these two, then a third came into play". It just says different authors used different names, so all three should be listed. Also, since Tupuxuaridae is being discussed, it's not like it's just shoving the "separate family" idea aside at first. I'd suggest listing all three names in the first sentence. Also, it's sort of explained already in the first paragraph, but I feel it should be more clear why we keep switching between a family level and subfamily name.

As mentioned earlier, this is written chronologically, so this order is what makes most sense in this regard. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 2011 analysis by palaeontologist Felipe Pinheiro and colleagues upheld the grouping of the clades Tapejarinae and Thalassodrominae in Tapejaridae - err, I don't believe anybody was ever arguing that Tapejarinae was anywhere else. If it was, you'd have to establish that before you can say the placement was "upheld".

Tapejaridae is not always considered a distinct family (such as when Neoazhdarchia is used), so it goes for both of them. The section already established this with for example "Martill and Naish found Tapejaridae a paraphyletic (unnatural) group". FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 2014 study by palaeontologist Brian Andres and colleagues instead found thalassodromids to group with dsungaripterids, forming the clade Dsungaripteromorpha with azhdarchids. - off a skim the cited paper does not anywhere include the term Dsungaripteromopha (or Dsungaripteridae, though the group is indeed in that spot...), and additionally the wording here makes it sound like Azdarchidae is within Dsungaripteromorpha, when based off the Azhdarchoidea page, common sense, and the use of Neoazdarchia for that node in their paper, obviously isn't the case.

It is defined in the supplementary material.[4] As far as I know, supp material is not supposed to be cited separately. But any ideas how to do it are welcome. Rephrased sentence to "forming the clade Dsungaripteromorpha within Neoazhdarchia". FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to classification, but the "diet" section should be "diet and feeding strategies", since it focuses in large part on the biomechanics of its feeding and not just what it fed on.

Changed to "Feeding and diet", as in most other such sections. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel some review of the classification section would be a very good idea. I can provide smaller comments about the rest of the sections if you want it, but there doesn't seem to be anything as important to pick apart there. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comments are always welcome, I'm not personally in a rush to get this promoted, but it seems the coordinators might feel differently... FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can pass it and then discuss it on the talk page more within WP:PALEO, perhaps with a peer review at some point. Also, I've refrained my support - looking at the section again, I feel it is too poor to express support for a pass. I merely will not oppose to impede the passing. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a matter of taste. Well alright, but have a look at other featured classification sections first, this one is hardly unusual. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, the paragraph on the Dsungaripterid placement could be expanded by discussing features that unite the group and *why* it was found, and that would be enough to satisfy Lusotitan that the classification section is no longer one-sided? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add features for that and the grouping with chaoyangopterids in the next edit I do which will also add "captions" to the two cladograms. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they were both node based rather than character based, so their definitions don't add much, but included it for Dsungaripteromorpha anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hmm, there's plenty of support for promotion here, but I find the suggestion of doing some serious reconstruction of an entire section, perhaps with a PR to follow, pretty dubious. FAs are certainly not set in stone, and can be promoted with some minor work remaining, but the bronze star does generally indicate consensus regarding the main aspects of an article. In theory, this article could go on the main page once it's promoted, yet it appears that at least one reviewer doesn't believe it would be ready for that. Normally if there are fundamental concerns about an article that's been under review as long as this one has, it'd be archived and rework done away from FAC, then be renominated so that everyone who's commented previously can express their opinion on the finished product. Have to come back to this one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, though, I think it's a pretty arbitrary issue. One editor prefers writing the classification section one way (by "topic", though never in an actual FAC), I prefer to write it another (chronologically). The way used here has been used for many other FACs, and I see no compelling reason to change it here. Perhaps it would be an idea to ping the supporters to see if they prefer either way. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some adjustments, though, which Lusotitan can evaluate. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose & FunkMonk, to be clear, the sticking point should be whether remaining criticism justifies archiving a nomination, not whether remaining criticism remains. Here, the criticism is both limited to a single section—one of the shortest in the article—and pertains to an analysis-based (as opposed to facts-based) section, which is exactly where one would expect to see the most disagreement. Lusotitan's comments, as I read them, are primarily concerned with the way information is presented, rather than the information itself. Similarly, the suggested peer review seems less about the Thalassodromeus article specifically, than about how classification sections are structured generally; if anything, a request for consensus would be more appropriate. I think this article is better for Lusotitan's comments—having a lead sentence, in particular, suggests to readers how they should interpret the information that follows—and I understand the preference for topic-based rather than chronology-based descriptions. This strikes me as a place where reasonable minds can and will disagree, however, not a place where disagreement should be an obstacle to promotion. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, considering how long this nomination stalled during this nomination because of lack of reviewers, I doubt it will save much future time to archive now anyway. Better to just get it over with. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the the classification section now. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, as before, (I would say) feel free to comment on other parts of the article, though it seems the coordinators are eager to get this closed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone -- nothing like talk of archiving to concentrate the mind, eh? ;-) Seriously though, wasn't a threat, more a case of me thinking out loud... But yes, FM, two months should certainly be long enough to reach consensus to promote and I feel comfortable that we have that now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.